There’re more cons of Google, e.g. it shows so many places with wrong names, I was really surprised how wrong it is in that, the best map here is Yandex non-satellite which shows both correct names and all the roads/paths as they are and not how Google does it – randomly.
Since GoogleMaps provides free service to iNaturalist, I wouldn’t mind keeping it.
Having OSM as an additional layer to choose from would be nice though.
Getting OSM tiles in the Google Maps API V3 seems to be possible.
The part that would need some work would be integrating it so it’s just an additional layer and doesn’t completely replace the Google Maps Layers
no google map on huawei phones
huawei uses petal maps
may any map would work just not google because of sanctions
fix this with GSpace app which emulates google services on a non google phone
how ever this is an anoying fix … and inat should be international useable … that means what ever just not google
the GSpace App to fix Inatuaralist on Huawei is here:
No I would prefer a style with contours
Is Yandex also good in reverse image searching ?
I only use it for maps and things like traffic, taxi, public transport, but not browser (though for sure need to start using it instead of Google), so can’t say, the option is there as far as I remember.
Very late to this discussion and not sure what I am about to say will even be any help, but here are just a few experiences I have with switching between Google Maps and various OSM maps
The Geocaching app c:geo (only available for Android) gives the user several options for maps - live maps via Google, Google Sat View, OSM and a few others - but also an option to use various offline maps (OSM maps that are available via third-party websites such as Mapsforge). Those maps are typically downloaded at the level of State, Province, or Country (deepening on size). See https://manual.cgeo.org/en/offlinemaps. Having a similar option in the app might skirt some of the issues related to who will host the map data or traffic issues. If a user want to use OSM maps, they would need to download the OSM maps to their device. Another advantage is that it is available without data (remote locations).
anyone that want to easily compare the maps between OSM (standard), Topo (OSM??), Gogole Maps and Sat View, visit https://flopp.net/ pick a location and toggle between the various map options.
* Inclusion of a geocoding API. This allows users to search for locations in picking an observation’s location, and to get text names for the coordinates they have included. Google’s geocoding and reverse geocoding is far more robust than any popular alternatives. OSM’s is very rigid requiring a direct match to its database, whereas Google will return results for a much larger variety of inputs. Any third-party geocoding API will also be expensive for the number of requests I expect it gets per day.
Where is the GeoCoding api used ? Because thisone take a lot of clicks and zoom compared to others which are much much faster. You mention the biggest place in the neighboorhood and it goes/opens there (Bangkok, Melbourne, Java, Djakarta, Bali)
I have Huawei devices, one of a newer kind, where I cannot visualize maps in the iNat app (uploads work, but without geo references, those have to be added subsequently via the website) and one older device where Google maps still work.
Apart from iNat, I have been using the OSM+ app for many years, and there is satellite imagery which can be turned on and off. Most often I just use contours in the walking profile, but switching to satellite/hybrid view is a no-brainer. The nice thing is, OSM+ works on both old and new Huawei devices. And it is way more accurate than Google maps this side of the Atlantic.
With the Overture Maps foundation ran by the Linux foundation and its going to be using OSM map data maybe they would be open to a similar free option to Google, or mapbox or someone. OSM just offers so much more detail for natural areas then gmaps does and it would be very nice to have it in inat.
This one is less drastic because gmaps is slowly improving in like big national sites, but OSM has details of what is owned by the TNC in their preserve vs the state ran wildlife area
Here we have a state park and trails through a preserve
+1 for OpenStreetMap. The GMaps coverage in most remote areas I’ve been to is horrible. Often, the places are mapped outright wrong, kilometres from the actual location. There’s more private businesses than natural features on the maps. Nothing against businesses but that’s not what I’m after when hiking or taking photos of wildlife.
The use of the satellite imagery is somewhat murky. If I’m at a new location, the satellite image does not tell me much. The names, streams, map markers like tables, caves, peaks, etc. do.
I’d rather mark at least one GPS location and confirm later on the desktop. My usual plant locations are mostly in a circle with a ~30km diameter, so the precise location is not that important.
OSM editors, however, (including Vespucci, the mobile one) do have a choice of dozens of satellite imagery providers, including aerial photography.
I like the ability to improve the map if I can, at the same time. Which I often do. In that regard, I find inaturalist complimentary - mapping the wildlife.
The policies and prices obviously change, so I’ll add the link to Mapbox pricing below. Simply because I saw it in quite a few apps and Web sites.
As for the localisation, OSM should have more, not less, localisation options, for all I know. This could be a feature of the apps that use offline maps, perhaps.
Recently, the privacy concerns have become more important. In that respect, we should all understand that Google is getting their fair share in return for a “free” service. It may not cost money but it is not free.
Clearly, the more mapping options the better.
My experience in the last 20 years of hiking with OsmAnd has been such that I have not even opened Google Maps in a browser in years. The mobile app I haven’t had for even longer.
when i was looking at the overpass turbo site, i noticed that they allow users to set their own custom tile set and opacity via settings. i wonder if something like that could be done for a “custom” basemap layer in iNat? this would allow folks to specify whatever (raster) tiles they prefer to use.
not sure if that’s friendly for tile providers, since enough folks hitting a particular provider might still overwhelm them, and folks might not attribute them correctly or use the tiles with proper licenses, but i thought the general concept was interesting for its flexibility.
The most minimal intervention I can think of is something along these lines, because it addresses the issue of OSM providing better data than Google in some places, but it does not address the issue of operating completely independently from Google for people in China or people who don’t want to constantly send their IP address to Google. The software to display map data from any source still comes from Google, as in every time you load an observation detail page, you’re loading Google Maps software from Google to show that map, even if the map data comes from an OSM server via a custom overlay or custom basemap.
It would be nice to rebuild our mapping system to use Leaflet (like overpass turbo does) or some other open source mapping system, but then we can’t show Google data, because you’re only allowed to show Google map tiles with Google software (yes, I realize many people do this anyway, but that’s a violation of Google’s terms, particularly 3.2.2 (d) and (e)).
Which leaves us with the unpleasant alternative of maintaining two separate mapping systems, one with Google map tiles and one without.
right. i wasn’t suggesting this would fix the China-Google problem. (that seems to be something that realistically needs to be handled politically.) i was just thinking about your question of which set of OSM tiles folks liked. if you were keeping the Google mapping framework but offering folks outside the Great Firewall a third basemap option that is non-Google, then you wouldn’t need folks to decide upfront which version of OSM tiles works best for the greatest number of people. you could just pick one as the default, and folks who want to use a different set could just override that default with whichever set they preferred.
I will go with this suggestion strongly, I am from Syria, and I have to change my location via VPN so that I can download the coordinates of the location in Syria!!
Thank you if this is really done
That’s helpful but ideally the default map on the observation page should be OSM. In natural areas, as many have noted, OSM frequently has far more detail than Google.
OpenStreetMap should be the default, not Google. In Europe, many, including myself, are uneasy with the way Google collects (and monetarize) their data. Map quality/detail and accessibility (especially from China) are important reasons too.
Very recently, the photo location saving was disabled inadvertently (or automatically without my knowledge) on my phone. Now I have to insert the locations for hundreds of observations manually. On Google maps it is really complicated. The trails are not on it nor they are visible on the satellite maps. It is even difficult to orient in the terrain map even though it does help somewhat.
I can get the location relatively accurately using the photo timestamp and Strava tracking of my movement, but finding the spot on the Google map is very difficult indeed.
If you’re using an Android phone, you might want to read this thread: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/android-app-not-reading-picture-location-data/37908/26 . Newer versions of the Android photo picker are not transferring image location data to the Android iNat app. There’s a workaround that switches to the old photo picker: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/android-app-not-reading-picture-location-data/37908/9
Of course, that may not be your issue at all. And if your phone truly didn’t record the location on many photos I feel for you.
No, this is not the issue, although it might have arrived as an automatic system update (although I disabled all automatic updates I could) at the same time.